Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

[Ginkgo]

When normal people builds rockets and high tech computers, cozy chatters would forever more build mud huts and beat hollow trunks with sticks.

Hex, you point is a good one and I have often iterated it my self. The reality is that 2500 years of philosophy have not yielded one steam train or one cell phone. In comparison three hundred years of science has landed men on the moon and probes on Mars.

So what is the point of philosophy? My answer is to discover purpose. Why in the hell is there something rather than nothing?

[HexHammer]

So what is the point of philosophy? My answer is to discover purpose. Why in the hell is there something rather than nothing?

Uhmm, thing is science also do philosophy and lay it out in theories, thesies and what not.

[Mark Question]

This is a good indication of why cozy chatters (socalled philosophers) are utterly useless, as they exorbiant amount of time on very basic things.
They would be fired from any serious buisness, when they can't make a simple correspondence with another person, but begins to ask having basic words explained.

When normal people builds rockets and high tech computers, cozy chatters would forever more build mud huts and beat hollow trunks with sticks.

Good analogy is the fundamental research in science. Money is not a good measure there.
Basic research (also called pure research or fundamental research) is a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena.[1] Basic research is executed without thought of a practical end goal, without specific applications or products in mind.[1] It includes all branches of science and engineering.[2]

Basic research has been described as arising out of curiosity.[3] Basic research is contrasted with applied research, which is research focused on a particular problem or application. Basic research lays the foundation for advancements in knowledge that lead to applied gains later on, occasionally as a result of unexpected discoveries.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_research

Same goes in philosophy where basic reasearch of human thinking has give us science, democracy, human and animal rights, atheism, etc..

Basic things matter. Cozy chatters can be also more money-productive than crazy workers.
https://www.pmiwdc.org/article/peter-ta ... e-laziness

[HexHammer]

This is a good indication of why cozy chatters (socalled philosophers) are utterly useless, as they exorbiant amount of time on very basic things.
They would be fired from any serious buisness, when they can't make a simple correspondence with another person, but begins to ask having basic words explained.

When normal people builds rockets and high tech computers, cozy chatters would forever more build mud huts and beat hollow trunks with sticks.

Good analogy is the fundamental research in science. Money is not a good measure there.
Basic research (also called pure research or fundamental research) is a systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena.[1] Basic research is executed without thought of a practical end goal, without specific applications or products in mind.[1] It includes all branches of science and engineering.[2]

Basic research has been described as arising out of curiosity.[3] Basic research is contrasted with applied research, which is research focused on a particular problem or application. Basic research lays the foundation for advancements in knowledge that lead to applied gains later on, occasionally as a result of unexpected discoveries.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_research

Same goes in philosophy where basic reasearch of human thinking has give us science, democracy, human and animal rights, atheism, etc..

Basic things matter. Cozy chatters can be also more money-productive than crazy workers.
https://www.pmiwdc.org/article/peter-ta ... e-laziness

Very fancy words, but you state this without making any direct correlation to my posts, save following quote:

Good analogy is the fundamental research in science. Money is not a good measure there.

Says who?

[Ginkgo]

So what is the point of philosophy? My answer is to discover purpose. Why in the hell is there something rather than nothing?

Uhmm, thing is science also do philosophy and lay it out in theories, thesies and what not.

Yes, science does philosophy and this is usually regarded as cosmology. What is the difference between Plato's theory of Forms and Lee Smolin's quantum gravity speculations? At first glance there appears to be little difference. Generally speaking, both theories are mathematical/logical models or constructs that make certain predictions in terms of a possible configuration of the universe.

The difference is the testability capacity of metaphysical philosophical theories compared to the testability of 'metaphysical' scientific theories. Smolin thinks in the near future it may be possible to devise an indirect method to test his theory of quantum gravity. As far as Plato's theory of Forms is concerned, no one knows how to devise a test to demonstrate how to scratch 'doghood' or 'dogness' behind the ears.

P.S Sorry, just thinking out loud.

[HexHammer]

Ginkgo

Difference is, science needs to test thus leading to proof and evidense, philosophy only thinks and spekulates.

[Ansiktsburk]

Maths or logic in themselves have never done anything useful, those are tools. It's when you use them for a purpose they get useful. Philosophy can be seen as basically the same, at least the way I use it. I use it to sharpen my" internal reasoning", and to get road models in ethics, politics and so forth.

I have done more for mobile phones than most here, both technically, using programming, logic and that kind of boring sh*t, but even more coordinating projects, handling people and "society". And philosophy (even though it's my hobby) helps me mentally in the political world which makes a business fly.

Whining about "philosophy does not do anything useful" is like kids in school whining about "why do we have to learn this, we will never use it". I went to a technical institute to become a civil engineer, and had to tamper with some the most difficult maths classes the country I live in has to offer. Even though I knew I never would use it (i haven't done anything as difficult as Pythagoran theorems since I left university decades ago), even though I don't particularly like maths. But did I whine, did I find it waste of time? No. Being able to solve advanced math problems gave me a good confidence boost, and helped my thinking generally.

Same with philosophy. I read Rawls "a theory of justice" at the moment. I'm pretty sure I will never be in a position to rule a country but I find it stimulating, and I don't know to which end that knowledge will come.

As for making "stupid questions" about definition about "sense" and stuff, well, you will not start an ordinary business meeting with that kind of question, but for sure, there is room for lifting very basic questions now and then. "What is productivity", like.

But yeah, my reading philosophy will never make a rocket fly. I think.

[HexHammer]

Maths or logic in themselves have never done anything useful, those are tools. It's when you use them for a purpose they get useful. Philosophy can be seen as basically the same, at least the way I use it. I use it to sharpen my" internal reasoning", and to get road models in ethics, politics and so forth.

I have done more for mobile phones than most here, both technically, using programming, logic and that kind of boring sh*t, but even more coordinating projects, handling people and "society". And philosophy (even though it's my hobby) helps me mentally in the political world which makes a business fly.

Whining about "philosophy does not do anything useful" is like kids in school whining about "why do we have to learn this, we will never use it". I went to a technical institute to become a civil engineer, and had to tamper with some the most difficult maths classes the country I live in has to offer. Even though I knew I never would use it (i haven't done anything as difficult as Pythagoran theorems since I left university decades ago), even though I don't particularly like maths. But did I whine, did I find it waste of time? No. Being able to solve advanced math problems gave me a good confidence boost, and helped my thinking generally.

Same with philosophy. I read Rawls "a theory of justice" at the moment. I'm pretty sure I will never be in a position to rule a country but I find it stimulating, and I don't know to which end that knowledge will come.

As for making "stupid questions" about definition about "sense" and stuff, well, you will not start an ordinary business meeting with that kind of question, but for sure, there is room for lifting very basic questions now and then. "What is productivity", like.

But yeah, my reading philosophy will never make a rocket fly. I think.

Nonsense and babble, ranting and raving!
Why does big billion dollar buisnesses that spend billions in research not hire philosophers? Because they'r utterly useless.

Not once in your post do you actually prove that philosophy has broad relevance, nor that it is a solid foundation in your work.
You just make a claim that it's usefu, but never backs it up, so that makes you per definiton an idiot!

[Ansiktsburk]

Maths or logic in themselves have never done anything useful, those are tools. It's when you use them for a purpose they get useful. Philosophy can be seen as basically the same, at least the way I use it. I use it to sharpen my" internal reasoning", and to get road models in ethics, politics and so forth.

I have done more for mobile phones than most here, both technically, using programming, logic and that kind of boring sh*t, but even more coordinating projects, handling people and "society". And philosophy (even though it's my hobby) helps me mentally in the political world which makes a business fly.

Whining about "philosophy does not do anything useful" is like kids in school whining about "why do we have to learn this, we will never use it". I went to a technical institute to become a civil engineer, and had to tamper with some the most difficult maths classes the country I live in has to offer. Even though I knew I never would use it (i haven't done anything as difficult as Pythagoran theorems since I left university decades ago), even though I don't particularly like maths. But did I whine, did I find it waste of time? No. Being able to solve advanced math problems gave me a good confidence boost, and helped my thinking generally.

Same with philosophy. I read Rawls "a theory of justice" at the moment. I'm pretty sure I will never be in a position to rule a country but I find it stimulating, and I don't know to which end that knowledge will come.

As for making "stupid questions" about definition about "sense" and stuff, well, you will not start an ordinary business meeting with that kind of question, but for sure, there is room for lifting very basic questions now and then. "What is productivity", like.

But yeah, my reading philosophy will never make a rocket fly. I think.

Nonsense and babble, ranting and raving!
Why does big billion dollar buisnesses that spend billions in research not hire philosophers? Because they'r utterly useless.

Not once in your post do you actually prove that philosophy has broad relevance, nor that it is a solid foundation in your work.
You just make a claim that it's usefu, but never backs it up, so that makes you per definiton an idiot!

Rather you are, asking for proofs, asking for sexy truths and answers. Reality, life and those kinds of things are messy, you know. Thats why people adore logic, natural science and such, they want nice little answers. Boring.

And btw, why does places like Harvard and Yale teach philosophy?

[HexHammer]

Rather you are, asking for proofs, asking for sexy truths and answers. Reality, life and those kinds of things are messy, you know. Thats why people adore logic, natural science and such, they want nice little answers. Boring.

That's why in medical science they deal with concepts as delusions.

[Ansiktsburk]

Too slow with the ninja edit...

[HexHammer]

Rather you are, asking for proofs, asking for sexy truths and answers. Reality, life and those kinds of things are messy, you know. Thats why people adore logic, natural science and such, they want nice little answers. Boring.

And btw, why does places like Harvard and Yale teach philosophy?

Nerds probaly love history.

[Ansiktsburk]

But you are right in a way. About being an Idiot, maybe, I feel like one every second day and Einstein inbetween. But more - my reasoning wasn't as stingent and well-ordered as the blokes who write articles in eg Philosophy Now. Just read that article in the second last issue about doping. That's really the beauty of good philosophers (which I am not, I am an amateur in the true sense of the word), they can sort up just like anything to something comprehensive.
I've tried to read one or two of those papers, jammed with modal logic, probably those makes good sense to the in-crowd as well.

To link back to the subject - The Tractatus has, on a first reading, failed to have that comprehenisve clarity to me. Maybe it will come on the second reading. Or the third, or never. But I guess that's what he was talking about. To use the language and logic in a way to give the best possible picture of reality.

[HexHammer]

Ansiktsburk

No, the articles in philosophy now are unqualifyed and only has good rethorics, they are utterly useless as they in no way reflect any deeper scientific understanding.

They bring up an article about Karl Marx, he is utterly useless and yet they talk about him as he was a genious contributing to the World, when he only brought it in ruin.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo

Difference is, science needs to test thus leading to proof and evidense, philosophy only thinks and spekulates.

Yes, I know. Some metaphysical theories are turned into scientific theories over time, while most just remain metaphysical theories never to be turned into scientific theories.